Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

The water feature and the law.


cattyal e2
9 6.4k 6 England
2 Aug 2012 12:13PM

Quote:I am glad to see a posting where the photographer is happy with what happened and has pointed out the good points.

What I am not happy about is the way the thread seems to be taken over as an "I am doing no wrong - bugger off and leave me alone" rant.



I was thinking just the same Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

franken e2
12 3.3k 4 Wales
2 Aug 2012 12:28PM

Quote:Since when did anybody need 'a right' to approach anybody?


In their official capacity of uploading the law(UK) they needed just cause and didn't really have it despite despite the request from the cctv person.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
2 Aug 2012 12:33PM
Do PCSOs have any rights over and above any other civilian?
Jestertheclown 6 6.6k 242 England
2 Aug 2012 12:33PM

Quote:I am glad to see a posting where the photographer is happy with what happened and has pointed out the good points.

What I am not happy about is the way the thread seems to be taken over as an "I am doing no wrong - bugger off and leave me alone" rant.


Exactly.

I wondered how long it would take for the "I carry this little card so bugger off" posts to arrive.

The whole point of my original post was to point out that, firstly the man overseeing the CCTV was doing his job. He saw what he thought could be a potential problem and dealt with it as he'd no doubt been instructed to do.
The PCSOs that dealt with it were sent, I'd imagine, because they were the closest at the time. I dare say I could just as easily have been approached by a passing dog handler or firearms officer. It was a question of using the troops that were most readily available.
The two officers, a man and a woman, were polite, courteous, professional and friendly. Not once did they intimate that I was doing anything wrong or that there was anything untoward going on. They were merely doing their job and in my opinion, they did it well.
As for their having a lack of understanding of the law, I doubt very much that that was the case. I'm quite certain that they were as aware of my rights as I was and they dealt with the situation accordingly.
I could, of course, got on my high horse and started shouting about my rights to take photographs in public places ( I do know my rights) and waving my little card about but would it have made a difference?
Well, yes, it probably would.
I'm quite sure that the attitude of the two officers would have changed considerably and we would have conducted our business the hard way.
The eventual result would have been the same but they would have gone away disillusioned because they'd encountered an unnecessarily stroppy member of the public and might well have approached the next photographer that they run into in a completely different fashion.
As it was, the matter was resolved amicably and to my mind satisfactorily.
We each went on our way, happy and none the worse for the encounter.

Bren.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
2 Aug 2012 12:35PM
There is a middle course, of course. It is perfectly possible to assert your rights without histrionics! Wink
franken e2
12 3.3k 4 Wales
2 Aug 2012 12:39PM
It's not a "carry little card so bugger off" post, these people are civilians in uniform and are employed to uphold the law as laid down by parliament. The fact that some are ignorant of the law is no excuse despite being nice and polite.
franken e2
12 3.3k 4 Wales
2 Aug 2012 12:41PM

Quote:There is a middle course, of course. It is perfectly possible to assert your rights without histrionics! Wink


I agree and have done so several times, in fact the last time as mentioned above he was happy to read the AP information and said thank you in the end. I've always been happy to speak to them in a pleasant manner but I know my rights.
Jestertheclown 6 6.6k 242 England
2 Aug 2012 12:47PM

Quote:In their official capacity of uploading the law(UK) they needed just cause and didn't really have it despite despite the request from the cctv person.

What cause would they have needed then? Surely just the possibility that some misdeed involving children could have been taking place would be sufficient? Would their cause have been just if something had been going on?


Quote:The fact that some are ignorant of the law is no excuse despite being nice and polite.

Why the animosity?
Nowhere have I said that they were ignorant of the law. That's just something that you've decided.

As it was, there was no need for me to state my case with or without histrionics, although yours is a good point CB, had the need arisen.
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2012 1:30PM
It's not a "carry little card so bugger off" post. Such a card, as I discovered avoids all the arguement, discussions, misunderstandings, nastiness and histrionics. Well worth carrying one if you are likely to take the sort of pictures that seem to upset the modern PC brigade ( No pun intended)
franken e2
12 3.3k 4 Wales
2 Aug 2012 1:30PM

Quote:Nowhere have I said that they were ignorant of the law. That's just something that you've decided.



They didn't have just cause because you had a big camera, and I don't make the law.

The chap looking at the scene via a cctv camera sent them down because you had a big camera and you were photographing children. Would he have sent them if you were using a camera Phone?

This is not having a go at you it's the very fact that you need due cause to ask questions like this and that's the real issue. They were probably pleasant as they were obviously aware of the error in the end.

Having a big camera appears to relate to something sinister these days.

You were doing no harm.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2012 1:54PM
You've missed the point franken.
Even if the PCSOs know the law (which they probably do), if they are requested to attend then they will do so. They first have to decide the merits of why the person making the request asked them to attend.


Imagine looking out of your window at night and seeing three youths wearing hoodies lurking about in the shadows. You phone the police because you are concerned. How would you feel if the police said to you on the phone 'we won't send someone out because they ahve a right to be there'? The least you would expect is for them to come and check it out.


Quote:you need due cause to ask questions like this

The due cause as you put it was that someone phoned up with a concern about someone's behaviour.


Quote:Having a big camera appears to relate to something sinister these days.

That's the problem and is one of perception by the person who called out the PCSOs.
franken e2
12 3.3k 4 Wales
2 Aug 2012 2:09PM
The due cause as you put it was that someone phoned up with a concern about someone's behaviour.


Where's that mentioned above?
As mentioned by me above the last time I was stopped by a PCSO I was on public land photographing a building. He shouted to me, "what are you doing?"

My reply was , "I'm photographing this building."

His reply was, "You have no rights to do so."

He wasn't the most pleasant of people and I asked him to read some information that I had as mentioned further back. His reply, " I didn't know that" and thanked me for showing it to him before walking away. So they're obviously not all up to speed with the rights of photographers.
NEWMANP e2
6 1.6k 574 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2012 2:19PM
maybe i started this. --- and im not the "bugger off and leave me alone" type.

what im saying is why would there be a need to even ask the question.

afterall Frank Meadow Sutclife wandered around Whitby in the 1800s placing kids at the front of his shots as did Cartier Bresson in Paris or wherever (boy with french bread stick). i see shots on here with children in the composition and there isnt anything to see in there but composition. i just dont get it. Damn it the church, and particularly the orphanage system has far more to answer to than photographers. (get ready for the barrage now).

go and ask your yound kids who shouldnt have face book sites if they have opened the account with fictiocious ages and then check the pictures they are posting. no blame seems to be pointing there.

when did photographers suddendly become badly thought of this way. why has attitude towards us changed so much. everything that is going on out there that is unthinkable has been going on a long long time. and its not photographers that are to blame any more than anyone else.

my son and his partner were stopped from photographing their 6month baby on his first trip to the pool last week (with a compact). when will this madness end.

Phil
franken e2
12 3.3k 4 Wales
2 Aug 2012 2:46PM
This may clear things up and only you can decide that.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html
Jestertheclown 6 6.6k 242 England
2 Aug 2012 2:57PM
Ken, once again, you're not getting the point; we'we all got a copy of that and/or other similar documents.
The point here isn't that either the PCSOs or myself didn't know all of that.
The point is that the officers concerned dealt with a situation which, for all they knew, could have become an 'incident,' professionally, efficiently and correctly.
I'm not trying to stir up a hornets' nest of 'little cards' and strident cries of "I know my rights."
I'm trying to put a positive spin on the situation.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.